Actually, I think as a broad rule, it's a very reasonable way of organising many sports - at least if women are ever to win anything in those sports.
Colorado signs law allowing abortion at ANY POINT in PREGNANCY
- Thread starter Phoenixmgs
- Start date
It would make more sense to just have weight classes in more sports that don't involve fighting, but with criteria besides just weight, and have it be fair that way. You could have like, a midget or something playing in the WNBA and then that'd be fair but not gendered.
Though yeah why do sports need to be organized in a way that allows inferior athletes to win? Isn't the idea of competition to find the best? Isn't the idea of "you're the best...for a woman!" kinda demeaning?
If we've already accepted that women can't beat men in any sports ever before they even try, then I just don't think that's a very interesting competition. It's more interesting to let em all compete together and get the occasional exception to the rule that shows up and competes with the men evenly.
Why should we even care if women win anything in sports ever? If they don't that's their fault isn't it? They're not owed wins, nobody is. People earn em. Most men will never win in any sport ever either. Wanting to have them win to not feel icky about them never winning defeats the point of sports and makes it into a joke.
Last edited:
Why divide by weight class? Why shouldn't a 60kg man have to compete with 100kg me at a powerlifting meet? Why do we even care if smaller people win anything in sports ever? If they don't it's their fault isn't it? They're not owed wins, nobody is. People earn em. Most large men will never win in any sport ever either. Wanting to have them win to not feel icky about them never winning defeats the point of sports and makes it into a joke.
Fuck it, while we're at it let's get rid of juniors sports too. Those soft little shits should compete with the big dogs and if they lose well sucks to suck.
I'm honestly just not very interested in your misogynistic Twilight Zone imagination of what the world could be.
Just know that THEY picked this line. They picked it specifically to win an argument. You don't have to automatically accept that line being force uoon you (Another example someone making up lines was the IOC picking hormone levels as their line.)
Maybe it would be a good idea to question whether it's the most appropriate line for everyone
Weight classes would seem to make most sense as an alternative, at least for most sports.
The invention of the trebuchet is older than the scientific understanding of gravity. Not understanding nature does not mean you haven't been using it for millenia.
Human sacrifice is also millennia old. Just because we did something for thousands of years doesn't mean we were doing it right.
For those millenia, they were judging it on genitals and morphology, and that's it.
If you want to argue that's the same, then anyone post-transition is indeed not their birth sex any more.
I think he means we would still have human sacrifice if not for abortion.
People question it all the time and land on men's (sometimes more like "an open category") and women's categories being the best. Sometimes you only need one category and sometimes the divide is unnecessary but mandated because it would be an exception otherwise. It is what it is nonetheless. When money and glory is at stake you will have producers and organizers etc. making demands on how things are done. One such body are the female athletes themselves who want their category to include only them. But in order for it to not be up to whims and opinions they have the IOC for example to set a dumbass rule or two.
Lols nah.
The point is solely that the historical popularity or longevity of something is irrelevant to its merits.
See: Christianity.
You've managed to accurately explained why my eyes glaze over and begin wandering elsewhere after reaching one sentence in with their posts. It was bugging me till now, much gratitude!
If you'd like to make the argument that if a person has their penis removed it makes them no longer a man, that's an argument made by lots of people with various intended meanings. "Manhood" is a term for male genitals for a reason.
But that's not really the point of contention, is it? Extraordinarily few people care about the things people claim not to be, the argument is largely about being something else. A trans-woman not being a man isn't really the argument, it's being a woman that's the sticking point.
Riiiiight, but transitioning isn't just "penis removal". Is... is that what you thought it was?
I'm not quite seeing what your point is. For millenia they judged it by genitalia and morphology, but now you don't want them to judge it by those criteria any more.